Why are people so into paying for online?

[TheTrueBrawler]

You think paid online will improve?

All he said is that we have a right to complain if it doesn't. Where exactly did you see him saying paid online would improve?

 

[soviet prince]

You think paid online will improve?

It may not, but lets see what the service entails then complain if it does not change.

 

[DaUsername]

It's not that we want to pay, it's that we have to.

 

[ssbashworld]

I mean i think it is kind of worth it for cloud saves and free nes games with added features, although i do think it is kind of bad to charge for online for games that have been free for a long time like splatoon 2 and arms.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You made some valid points in the whole post, but I'm curious about the one you opened with.

You know that paying for your personal internet connection has absolutely nothing to do with the costs for what other companies provide via the internet, right? By this same argument, you shouldn't have to pay for, say, Netflix. Or, even going a step further, you pay for your electric bill, so why should you pay for a Switch at all?

While this is true, it still begs the question how PC gamers can get a lot of this stuff for free without much of a downside.

Are servers worse in PC for some games when we do not need to pay for it? I’m not convo fed that they are way worse or a noticeable downside. Which is the problem with trust, a lot of these companies, mostly Microsoft, have done a terrible job building it to show they aren’t trying to monetize everything because they think they can get away with it versus am actual need over greed.

If the promise is more stable servers, are we actually getting them over the free version in terms of quality? Some companies dived in head first with the lootboxes shenanigans last year until EA got super greedy and blew up in their face with SF battlefront 2. Which it’s s Star Wars game, you don’t need to make it so it takes 40 hours of F2P grinding to unlock Vader to keep the game rolling post launch. I get the idea of using it to find future content but that does scream more of greed than need.

I don’t think Nintendo is trying to penny pinch like other companies are, Microsoft for online and other shinanigans has been far greedier for a console maker. But I still ask the question, if PC games don’t need it why do console players need to pay for it, and if so what are the benefits over it being free?

 

[staindgrey]

While this is true, it still begs the question how PC gamers can get a lot of this stuff for free without much of a downside.

Are servers worse in PC for some games when we do not need to pay for it? I’m not convo fed that they are way worse or a noticeable downside. Which is the problem with trust, a lot of these companies, mostly Microsoft, have done a terrible job building it to show they aren’t trying to monetize everything because they think they can get away with it versus am actual need over greed.

If the promise is more stable servers, are we actually getting them over the free version in terms of quality? Some companies dived in head first with the lootboxes shenanigans last year until EA got super greedy and blew up in their face with SF battlefront 2. Which it’s s Star Wars game, you don’t need to make it so it takes 40 hours of F2P grinding to unlock Vader to keep the game rolling post launch. I get the idea of using it to find future content but that does scream more of greed than need.

I don’t think Nintendo is trying to penny pinch like other companies are, Microsoft for online and other shinanigans has been far greedier for a console maker. But I still ask the question, if PC games don’t need it why do console players need to pay for it, and if so what are the benefits over it being free?

The largest reason for the difference between PC and console is that a console manufacturer has to get you to buy the console itself, often at a loss, and then makes their money by taking a percentage of all games released for it, having their own digital shops, selling accessories, etc. But the cost of manufacturing, and the risk of not being able to sell the quantities you've forecasted (i.e. Wii U or Vita), can hinder growth if investors aren't sold, and can make them pull out entirely.

PC marketplaces, such as Steam, lack the hurdle of hardware because the user supplies the PC all their own. Steam, Origin, GOG, etc., all get to take a cut of all games sold on their marketplace with, to my knowledge, absolutely no risk of no return on investment, because all their products are digital and produced by third parties. Thus they allocate work to their interface, providing features for a better user experience to try and get a PC user to use them over the competition. For console manufacturers, these features need to net some sort of revenue to justify the costs, as there's no direct competition within the console itself to justify doing it at a loss. The console is already a loss to get a costumer to buy into it.

I fully understand someone not wanting to pay for what seem like "simple" additions and upgrades, but as a business owner myself, I also understand that nothing comes for free, and sometimes you simply have to pay for what you want. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't want it that bad. Nothing wrong with that. It's the expectation of "I don't want to pay for it, but I still want it, so you should give it to me for free" that ruffles my feathers. (The "you" here is hypothetical, not directed at you you.)

 

[itsaxelol]

Didn't read this topic but I'm "into it" because online play is the number 1 biggest aspect of smash for me. Brawls online was terrible, and smash 4, while better because of 1v1 FG, was still garbage

I'm making the safe presumption that paid online will posistively effect their historically terrible and laggy servers. I'm also not 15 years old, and 1.75 a month or whatever doesn't bother me

 

[itsaxelol]

Doubleposted

 

[ExitWound]

Because Nintendo knows their rabid fanbase will eat it all up despite every console since the DS having decent wifi. It also goes back to them shutting down rom websites and archival projects for long-out of print games that no one makes a penny from anymore, that way you can rent their rom of super mario bros. that they downloaded online for a month. but they won't give you a legitimate way to play sunsoft's batman...

 

[pupNapoleon]

All Nintendo is doing with this is seeing how much money they can make.

Next thing you know they will make characters require online matches to unlock, indirectly making it on disc DLC

What online service by a major company is free (some aren't free even with additional ads!)

We arent just paying for the Direct, we are paying for everything Nintendo does to make these little changes along the way. What company spends this budget on contacting and speaking to us Directly on a bimonthly basis? What company makes features to find independent games on their overcrowded

I'm not big on the PC gaming anymore because ultimately I do not want to devote my own resources to the constant fight for technical improvement, and because the gaming atmosphere is so overcrowded it's almost impossible to navigate. The disillusion of content control at all makes playing/finding anything on the PC (and to me, largely on the PS and Xbox) feel cluttered and lessened.

If Nintendo wants to continue to improve my quality of gaming experience, I'll spend 100 bucks.
And hell, while I know not everyone has access to a job that pays decently, or at all, if you are spending hours of your life online complaining about 20 dollars, what are you doing with your life? If x is the number of hours you work to pay off the 20 dollars, is spending 5x or more times complaining about the fee... worth it?

 

[C-G]

We should just be glad we don't unlock characters with lootboxes

 

[RespawningJesus]

I am gonna be paying for online so that I can play some Monster Hunter and of course Smash when it comes out. And the occasional Splatoon. I am just glad it is so cheap compared to XBL and PSN. But Nintendo defintely needs to step up their game from here on out.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

I am gonna be paying for online so that I can play some Monster Hunter and of course Smash when it comes out. And the occasional Splatoon. I am just glad it is so cheap compared to XBL and PSN. But Nintendo defintely needs to step up their game from here on out.

you think Nintendo will improve the online?

 

[The Slayer]

you think Nintendo will improve the online?

It's less of "will" and more of "how" and "when." We know Nintendo has a weird weakness of implementing decent online services for their hardware/software and clearly it may not be perfected with this system. And quite honestly, they might not need to improve it substantially anyways, but it would help the system's longevity and legacy.

 

[Room100]

Either it gets better with us paying for it, or it doesn't and it's still fine as it was. Get a group of friends together and its $5 a year. That's so insanely negligible compared to other consoles that any gripes I have like bad online chat options are nothing (considering I use outside chat clients anyway). If you're whining about $5 a year, even $20 a year, how are you affording to play video games in the first place?

Bottom line is I'll support the only gaming company actually bringing me genuine joy nowadays.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

To quote what someone said on one of the other two threads he made on this exact same topic...

Guys stop feeding the troll. This person is obviously trying to stir flame. Close the thread.

 

[The Slayer]

To quote what someone said on one of the other two threads he made on this exact same topic...

Then use a report button? Can't really close a thread unless their is a cause for it (like gaining post count via spamming the same comment). Otherwise, calling people trolls isn't going to close the thread (somewhat).

Even more ironic it's a quote from that guy...

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Either it gets better with us paying for it, or it doesn't and it's still fine as it was. Get a group of friends together and its $5 a year. That's so insanely negligible compared to other consoles that any gripes I have like bad online chat options are nothing (considering I use outside chat clients anyway). If you're whining about $5 a year, even $20 a year, how are you affording to play video games in the first place?

Bottom line is I'll support the only gaming company actually bringing me genuine joy nowadays.

It's totally about the price right?

Someone can cooperate with their friends to block all the doors that lead into your house and make you pay $5-20 a year to make them move, and you would pay the fee to remove them right?

What? You don't want to pay? Why not? It's cheap right?

 

[Room100]

It's totally about the price right?

Someone can cooperate with their friends to block all the doors that lead into your house and make you pay $5-20 a year to make them move, and you would pay the fee to remove them right?

What? You don't want to pay? Why not? It's cheap right?

Oh, you mean like paying rent for an apartment? But you live there, why should you pay for it? Except that I wish my rent was $5 a year. But let's get out of this weird housing capitalism/socialism analogy.

It seems like a lot of this is a divide of people who feel that online is an intrinsic part of every game with online play or a separate overarching service provided by whatever company provides a way to play the games. I fall into the latter because I'm used to things like Xbox Live and am not a big PC gamer. There's a lot of small nuances that complicate everything though: solid online play having been free in the past on Switch, other consoles, and still on PC ("free" not counting an internet bill of course"); games that are made primarily offline with online functionality (Mario Kart) versus games that LITERALLY have no use offline (Overwatch); maybe there should be different levels where just accessing online on Switch is free but you can pay premium for things like NES games/a future Virtual Console, special bonuses, exclusive deals, etc. BUT maybe they feel that doesn't work for some reason...

The list could go on and on in a pointless argument that boils down to "I want it for free because I believe the service should inherently be tied to the game and the money isn't going to direct use for the service" or "I'm fine paying for it because I'm okay with funding a company I like, I enjoy the additional content, and don't feel it's an unfair price." I don't think anyone's denying that it'd be great if it was free, or that Nintendo makes dumb dumb DUMB decisions with how they implement online play (no easy group-up mechanic across games, bad voice chat accessibility, and so on).

There's no answer or point to this thread, it's just aimlessly aggressive on both sides and changing nothing since you'll either be paying for NSO soon enough or you won't.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Oh, you mean like paying rent for an apartment? But you live there, why should you pay for it? Except that I wish my rent was $5 a year. But let's get out of this weird housing capitalism/socialism analogy.

It seems like a lot of this is a divide of people who feel that online is an intrinsic part of every game with online play or a separate overarching service provided by whatever company provides a way to play the games. I fall into the latter because I'm used to things like Xbox Live and am not a big PC gamer. There's a lot of small nuances that complicate everything though: solid online play having been free in the past on Switch, other consoles, and still on PC ("free" not counting an internet bill of course"); games that are made primarily offline with online functionality (Mario Kart) versus games that LITERALLY have no use offline (Overwatch); maybe there should be different levels where just accessing online on Switch is free but you can pay premium for things like NES games/a future Virtual Console, special bonuses, exclusive deals, etc. BUT maybe they feel that doesn't work for some reason...

The list could go on and on in a pointless argument that boils down to "I want it for free because I believe the service should inherently be tied to the game and the money isn't going to direct use for the service" or "I'm fine paying for it because I'm okay with funding a company I like, I enjoy the additional content, and don't feel it's an unfair price." I don't think anyone's denying that it'd be great if it was free, or that Nintendo makes dumb dumb DUMB decisions with how they implement online play (no easy group-up mechanic across games, bad voice chat accessibility, and so on).

There's no answer or point to this thread, it's just aimlessly aggressive on both sides and changing nothing since you'll either be paying for NSO soon enough or you won't.

Well microsoft tried to charge for PC online and gamers said no. If we do a boycott we can change NIntendo.

 

[Room100]

Well microsoft tried to charge for PC online and gamers said no. If we do a boycott we can change NIntendo.

My question is, would you rather boycott any paid online service and just have exactly what we have forever, or fight for better benefits and other fixes to the paid plan?

The way I see it, even if they aren't actively upgrading servers, if NSO is a thing then they have a team of people dedicated to working on the service. A lot of the hate for NSO comes from the fact that the bonuses like NES games and voice chat are minimal or poorly executed, and/or that they're being very vague in terms of if gaming experience will improve and what those special deals will be down the line. I'd much rather have paying members who are saying "X Y and Z sucks about NSO, fix it with our money." That could open the door to a lot of awesome stuff down the road; Virtual Console/other Netflix-type gaming on SNES N64 etc., discounts, special costumes in games, exclusive demos, whatever.

It'd still be better if there was a free online alternative with no additional benefits and then a Pro platform with all that stuff, but if it's between paid online and extra stuff or nothing, I'm still paying.

 

[soviet prince]

It's totally about the price right?

Someone can cooperate with their friends to block all the doors that lead into your house and make you pay $5-20 a year to make them move, and you would pay the fee to remove them right?

What? You don't want to pay? Why not? It's cheap right?

stop with this analogy it does not fit, there internet is charging you for THERE SERVICE which there online is, your only entitled to the offline content with your 60 dollar purchase. what your doing is preventing ppl to go into THERE house which they already own/rent that would be the same as them taking your gamedisk and charging you which is way different then online services.

charging for online is more like having to pay to get into a concert or football game. you want the experience then you got to pay nothing is owed to you.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

No one wants to, we have to in order to play online. It's a miracle NSO is only $20 per year

 

[FNUStory]

It's totally about the price right?

Someone can cooperate with their friends to block all the doors that lead into your house and make you pay $5-20 a year to make them move, and you would pay the fee to remove them right?

What? You don't want to pay? Why not? It's cheap right?

Unless you're still living with your parents, you pay for goods services. As my former economics teacher Dr. Costello puts it, nothing in this world is free. To name a whole bunch of stuff people pay for...

Spoiler: Goods and Services

- Housing
- Doors
- Windows
- Beds
- Dressers
- Chairs
- Couches
- Paint
- Toilets
- Sinks
- Home Repairs
- Water
- Ice
- Cups
- Plastic Bottles
- Food
- Plates
- Bowls
- Silverware
- Restaurants
- Fast Food
- Medications
- Doctor Appointments
- Dentist Appointments
- Unplanned Hospital Visits
- Health Care
- Electricity
- Batteries
- Television
- The TV Itself
- Movies
- Netflix
- Hulu
- Internet
- Cell Phones
- Service
- Computer
- Monitor
- HDMI Cable
- Keyboard
- Mouse
- Audio Device
- Consoles
- Video Games
- DLC Content
- Controllers
- Adapters

I probably missed a whole bunch of stuff from this list. I guarantee you someone out there can extend this list by hundreds or maybe even thousands of more every day items. It could literally go on forever if time permitted.

If there is anything on this list you don't pay for directly, the money comes from somewhere, and more than likely right out of your pocket. Why do think we pay taxes in our society? By the way, your analogy of people coming to your house is a stupid argument for two reasons. You're comparing services to blackmail. You can settle it by calling the police instead of paying to not be harmed by these groups of people in your every day life, and if you're concerned about getting out of your house to actually get to court, I can guarantee you that the police force can help you with that. By the way, don't even get me started about how it's a completely illogical scenario that results in near zero benefit to the people who are doing it.

I don't want to pay either. Then again, I don't want to pay for anything mentioned in the list I made in the spoiler tag. I do it because nothing in this world is free, and I can't receive what I want without paying a price. The price we paid for the free Wii U online service was it being notoriously known to lag to a point of being unplayable. It wasn't a price fans liked. Fans want better servers, but Nintendo can't supply that for free. Charging is the only way for what fans want to happen. Sorry if $20 a year is too much for you.

Then again, if $20 a year is too much, then how are you even playing video games? How are you even posting on Smashboards?

 

[Frizz]

Having more options wouldn't hurt. If they were to provide better but more expensive plans, then I'm sure the Nintendo Switch online service wouldn't get as much mixed feedback as it does currently. That way, if you simply wanted online, you could pay for it at $20 a year. But if you wanted a bit more than that, like early access to virtual console releases or something of the sort, then you'd have to pay a bit more, like $25-30 a year.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Unless you're still living with your parents, you pay for goods services. As my former economics teacher Dr. Costello puts it, nothing in this world is free. To name a whole bunch of stuff people pay for...

Spoiler: Goods and Services

- Housing
- Doors
- Windows
- Beds
- Dressers
- Chairs
- Couches
- Paint
- Toilets
- Sinks
- Home Repairs
- Water
- Ice
- Cups
- Plastic Bottles
- Food
- Plates
- Bowls
- Silverware
- Restaurants
- Fast Food
- Medications
- Doctor Appointments
- Dentist Appointments
- Unplanned Hospital Visits
- Health Care
- Electricity
- Batteries
- Television
- The TV Itself
- Movies
- Netflix
- Hulu
- Internet
- Cell Phones
- Service
- Computer
- Monitor
- HDMI Cable
- Keyboard
- Mouse
- Audio Device
- Consoles
- Video Games
- DLC Content
- Controllers
- Adapters

I probably missed a whole bunch of stuff from this list. I guarantee you someone out there can extend this list by hundreds or maybe even thousands of more every day items. It could literally go on forever if time permitted.

If there is anything on this list you don't pay for directly, the money comes from somewhere, and more than likely right out of your pocket. Why do think we pay taxes in our society? By the way, your analogy of people coming to your house is a stupid argument for two reasons. You're comparing services to blackmail. You can settle it by calling the police instead of paying to not be harmed by these groups of people in your every day life, and if you're concerned about getting out of your house to actually get to court, I can guarantee you that the police force can help you with that. By the way, don't even get me started about how it's a completely illogical scenario that results in near zero benefit to the people who are doing it.

I don't want to pay either. Then again, I don't want to pay for anything mentioned in the list I made in the spoiler tag. I do it because nothing in this world is free, and I can't receive what I want without paying a price. The price we paid for the free Wii U online service was it being notoriously known to lag to a point of being unplayable. It wasn't a price fans liked. Fans want better servers, but Nintendo can't supply that for free. Charging is the only way for what fans want to happen. Sorry if $20 a year is too much for you.

Then again, if $20 a year is too much, then how are you even playing video games? How are you even posting on Smashboards?

You really think money will be used to improve the servers?

THERE ARE NO SERVERS TO IMPROVE. IT'S SOLELY PEER TO PEER.

 

[Room100]

Having more options wouldn't hurt. If they were to provide better but more expensive plans, then I'm sure the Nintendo Switch online service wouldn't get as much mixed feedback as it does currently. That way, if you simply wanted online, you could pay for it at $20 a year. But if you wanted a bit more than that, like early access to virtual console releases or something of the sort, then you'd have to pay a bit more, like $25-30 a year.

Problem is Nintendo let people expect free, overall good online play since the Switch has been out, so if there was a choice between "just online" and "online + benefits" the former would have to be free. In fairness, if there aren't servers to maintain/non-Nintendo companies need to run the servers for their games, then just paying the price of the game makes sense. That way people who just want to play are fine, and Nintendo still gets money from "premium" as long as it offered a better selection of benefits.

But again I think it's an all-or-nothing offer Nintendo wants to push and I'm still in the camp of being willing to pay it.

 

[Izanagi97]

Problem is Nintendo let people expect free, overall good online play since the Switch has been out, so if there was a choice between "just online" and "online + benefits" the former would have to be free. In fairness, if there aren't servers to maintain/non-Nintendo companies need to run the servers for their games, then just paying the price of the game makes sense. That way people who just want to play are fine, and Nintendo still gets money from "premium" as long as it offered a better selection of benefits.

But again I think it's an all-or-nothing offer Nintendo wants to push and I'm still in the camp of being willing to pay it.

Yeah, sometimes I feel like Nintendo doesn't do in between on certain things

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Loving the educated and informative responses in this thread. Doing a good job as a foil to TC's outrage.

A lot of what has been said makes sense. I don't mind paying despite having free online service before because I understand that this stuff tends to become expensive to maintain and also because it will give me a say in the matter, and Nintendo will really need to listen to these paying customers to improve their service. It's also cheap, so I don't mind paying 20 bucks (I'm not a big spender when compared to other people anyways). Wish some people would think this through rather than responding with their first knee jerk reaction.

 

[Thinkaman]

People keep moving the goalposts.

Steam is a great platform. It is also a storefront, not a multiplayer server-hosting service. It is not holistically comparable to Xbox Live Gold.

Nintendo is attempting to offer a low-fat premium online infrastructure, one without integrated voice chat or dedicated servers but at a third the price. We'll see how it works and see how it grows.

 

[FNUStory]

You really think money will be used to improve the servers?

THERE ARE NO SERVERS TO IMPROVE. IT'S SOLELY PEER TO PEER.

If people buy the service, guess what they can demand Nintendo to do with their $20. You guessed it, or maybe you didn't. I honestly have no idea at this point given what all has been said on this thread and the other two, so I'll explicitly say it anyways. Buy official servers they may or may not be lacking.

Edits
I know it has been ten hours, but I want to make edits to this original post because I feel the need to point out how pointless this thread is. The OP of the three threads essentially about the same topic clearly is not interested in conversation. It is obvious because he is actively ignoring rebuttals. Sure, he has a few arguments up his sleeve, but as soon as anyone makes a counter argument to something he said, he doesn't even acknowledge it.

Exhibit A - This comment, the first rebuttal since the thread was necroed, has yet to receive a reply from the OP.
Exhibit B - The content that was in this comment when I originally posted it ten hours ago has yet to be acknowledged either.
Exhibit C - The OP has created three threads essentially on the same topic to dodge strong counter arguments.

He clearly isn't ghosting the thread as he took the time to make the exact same argument about something Nate VO said. All he is doing is proceeding to utilize the same few arguments over and over again which have been disproved each time. To a certain extend, it feels like he is copying and pasting one of his previous comments and slightly tweaking it to make it look new. I think we all should stop trying to talk to a brick wall. I know I'm done.

 

[Pegasus Knight]

What bothers me about all this is the lack of voice chat. No, handing it off to a cell phone app does not count. And here's why: It's a step backward for Nintendo. Not just the industry in general, but Nintendo in particular.

The Wii U had video chat built in. I expect its successor to have at least voice chat. Doubly so when I'm now paying a yearly fee for it.

 

[Guh-Huzzah!]

Unpopular opinion incoming, it I think Nintendo online services are fine. 5 dollars a month is a pretty good deal. And you get free NES games along with it. Server’s arn’t free, as well. So if we are paying Nintendo money for it. They can make the servers better. I don’t understand all the hate for Switch’s online services to be honest.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Unpopular opinion incoming, it I think Nintendo online services are fine. 5 dollars a month is a pretty good deal. And you get free NES games along with it. Server’s arn’t free, as well. So if we are paying Nintendo money for it. They can make the servers better. I don’t understand all the hate for Switch’s online services to be honest.

If everyone pays Nintendo money would they take the money and do nothing or would they actually use the money to make the online better?

Sounds like a lot of the former

 

[Guh-Huzzah!]

If everyone pays Nintendo money would they take the money and do nothing or would they actually use the money to make the online better?

Sounds like a lot of the former

You realize the majority of the money is going to help Nintendo as a business so they can make better games and stuff for the players...right?

 

[Room100]

What bothers me about all this is the lack of voice chat. No, handing it off to a cell phone app does not count. And here's why: It's a step backward for Nintendo. Not just the industry in general, but Nintendo in particular.

The Wii U had video chat built in. I expect its successor to have at least voice chat. Doubly so when I'm now paying a yearly fee for it.

Even though I support paying for NSO I completely agree. Fortnite on Switch works absolutely fine in terms of creating parties, voice chat, and very basic online play necessities while games from Nintendo usually don't. Another big part of the issue is that it doesn't work like Xbox Live where people can see if you're online even outside of a game and create parties/send invites across different games. It really doesn't affect me because I use Skype or Discord to talk to my friends while we play, but it's still a very basic function that they don't provide for some reason. Hopefully they either create an overarching party-up system with friends or just build in party/chat mechanics into all their online games.

 

[Room100]

If everyone pays Nintendo money would they take the money and do nothing or would they actually use the money to make the online better?

Sounds like a lot of the former

Like I said in my other reply, "even if they aren't actively upgrading servers, if NSO is a thing then they have a team of people dedicated to working on the service." Like you said they don't really have servers for money to go to, but if the platform is getting funded then ideally that means feedback will be a lot more clear and lead to consistent improvements. If they don't then I fully support dropping the service to show them monetarily people aren't happy. But I want to actually SEE the money not being used well and not reference back to a past time of their business that was wholly different and worse than right now.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

You realize the majority of the money is going to help Nintendo as a business so they can make better games and stuff for the players...right?

Pics or it won't happen

Like I said in my other reply, "even if they aren't actively upgrading servers, if NSO is a thing then they have a team of people dedicated to working on the service." Like you said they don't really have servers for money to go to, but if the platform is getting funded then ideally that means feedback will be a lot more clear and lead to consistent improvements. If they don't then I fully support dropping the service to show them monetarily people aren't happy. But I want to actually SEE the money not being used well and not reference back to a past time of their business that was wholly different and worse than right now.

Well I heard reports that all Sony and Microsoft did with paid online was pocket the cash gained.

And if there are no servers to go through then there's probably nothing to spend on.

 

[xzx]

What makes me angry about Nintendon't is that I'm not paying for servers...

 

[Room100]

Well I heard reports that all Sony and Microsoft did with paid online was pocket the cash gained.

If you could find articles or reports about that that'd be appreciated. I don't really doubt them doing that but it goes into my next point:

And if there are no servers to go through then there's probably nothing to spend on.

Even if money isn't literally A-to-B going from us to tech costs, it's still going to Nintendo who then pays employees hired to improve and manage NSO. As long as there are people who are listening to paying customers and trying to make the experience better then sure, they can "pocket" the money all they want. It's not just sitting on a dragon's hoard if it means paid workers are listening to concerns.